Historical perspective
"A corrective to two thousand years of Christianity" is Hollywood director Paul Verhoeven's modest summation of the notion behind his book, along with movie soon to follow, intended to bring to the masses a new, up-to-date picture of the actual historical Jesus. Here's the 1st paragraph of Anthony Sacramone's related First Things post of today:One always hopes that a new year will both usher in what’s truly new and show the door to what’s proven stale. An example of the latter would be yet more “new” revelations about the “real” Jesus. No such luck. Paul Verhoeven, the man who brought us Robocop, Basic Instinct, Total Recall, and the Citizen Kane of lap-dancing melodramas, Showgirls, is making his own foray into that besotted enterprise.Do take a glance, at least, at the rest of that.
What about, now, something of a corrective to several hundred tedious years of people with a bit of popular audience or literary influence, and a need to put an all-too-pivotal and all-too-sovereign Lord Jesus into a historical box, heralding as the modern scientific mentality come into its day their 'discoveries' that the New Testament doesn't provide a tidy, simple account of his earthly life & ministry – hmm?
posted by paul bowman @ 8:00 PM
2 Comments:
There is something about attempting an artistic representation of Christ - or the search for the "Historical Jesus" - that almost always irks me. The old metaphor (Schweitzer's?) that comes up again and again is of the seeker who stares down into the deep well and sees his own reflection. Even attempted reverential "portraits" come out looking risible (Girzone's Joshua being but one recent example). I would much rather watch (yet again) Monty Python's Life of Brian; at least there we have a portrait that manages to completely "get the point" while missing it wildly at the same time.
I'm also compelled to mention that, in one of those wonderous works of fate, a dear friend of mine - whom I originally met at my old, tres conservative Bible school - is a contributing member of the Jesus Seminar. When I jokingly asked if he could get Verhoeven to autograph my special edition DVD of Showgirls, he told me that PV hadn't put in an appearance at the Seminar in quite some time. He even suggested that the Seminar was running out of gas, as evidenced by his own recent invitation to join. I'm sure my friend was just being self-effacing, but it's certainly true they've lost their grip on the spotlight.
Anyway, there is something about Islamic insistance when it comes to artistry in relation to their Scriptures that I find appealing: We've got what we've got, and that's more than enough, so let's just stick with that. On the other hand, one doesn't want to get too hung up on other people's risible portraits of God.
BTW, I've yet to see Showgirls, nevermind own a copy (honest Christian).
Hee hee! Always presumptively maintained Showgirls in the unacceptable-for-view category myself — but if it rises to the standards achieved in Robocop, Starship Troopers, or Hollow Man (which I've seen on small screen, but never knew to be by the same fellow), I don't suppose it can pose all that much a threat to wholesomeness of one's imagination, no matter how much teasing booty gets flashed.
I've got to avoid, here, seeming to represent myself as very well informed about the Jesus Seminar and/or any like or tied-in academic, pseudo-academic, or media projects. Would be wrong for me to assume, from where I stand, that everything coming out of that sort of contrivance of dialogue is necessarily (or equally) reprehensible, or that everyone who's involved is involved for necessarily bad reasons. In any case, what my post reacts to most basically of course is an older, broader phenomenon (which I guess we identify with Enlightenment culture especially) of mere religion-specific skepticism trying to pass itself off, through recourse to modernity's array of critical devices, as something independent of, or superior to, the whole burden of Christian assertion & account (which just aren't plausibly disentangleable from any significant portion of the NT as we've received it) bound up essentially in the proclamation that God now is come, incarnate, into the world to take the promised part of its only judge & redeemer. My impression's been that the Jesus Seminar is little more than a late, perhaps rather limp expression of that finally pointless enterprise. But that's not an impression from anything like first-hand exposure: maybe I'm assuming things I shouldn't.
The especially tiresome thing to be confronted with is the drive to popularize this stuff. (I confess, by the way, that I didn't know Verhoeven has long standing as part of the Jesus Seminar — figured he was likely just another media power player with a simple politics & an eye on culture-wars paydirt.) I'm not interested in anything's getting banned or, worse, used for an occasion to stir up reactionary religious feeling. I don't think, fundamentally, that books or other media can be dangerous in themselves — as I've said elsewhere. But it's a shame to see bad ideas dignified as 'alternative viewpoint' just to keep up the appearance that there are disinterested parties among us to whom we may yet look to see religion & its interests held to some higher account. Don't we all really know that's baloney by now?
Well ... maybe not.
At the same time, like you I tend to resist popularization from the other direction with equal distaste/suspicion (not to say just the same sort of distaste/suspicion). And yet this isn't necessarily to resist any particular form or means of portrayal of Christ, or of things belonging to his nature or work, categorically. (This is an area where with time I'm leaning away, I think, from Reformed/Presbyterian understanding.) Some kinds of clarity regarding culture & worship, I think, we don't really want — and aren't really given. But this is a real can of worms, obviously — maybe best left alone here. : )
Post a Comment
<< Home